LEADER

- an approach to innovative and suitable solutions in rural areas?

Schnaut, Gitta; Pollermann, Kim; Raue, Petra

Johann Heinrich von Thnen-Institute (vTI),

Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries
- Institute of Rural Studies

Gitta.Schnaut@vti.bund.de

Paper prepared for presentation at the 131st EAAE Seminar Innovation for
Agricultural Competitiveness and Sustainability of Rural Areas, Prague, Czech
Republic, September 18-19, 2012

Copyright 2012 by Schnaut, Gitta; Dr. Pollermann, Kim; Raue, Petra. All rights reserved.
Readers may make verbatim copies of this document for non-commercial purposes by any
means, provided that this copyright notice appears on all such copies.

LEADER
- an approach to innovative and suitable solutions in rural areas?
Schnaut, Gitta; Dr. Pollermann, Kim; Raue, Petra Schnaut
Annotation: The research presented is part of the evaluation of Rural Development Programmes
(RDP) in seven German Lnder (federal states).Innovation is often mentioned as an important
pillar of the development of rural areas. One part of Rural Development Programmes, which
explicitly addresses innovation, is LEADER: a bottom up-oriented, participatory approach with
cooperation by local actors in rural areas. In LEADER, a Local Action Group (LAG) with
stakeholders of different institutions and origins comes together as a kind of a public-private
partnership and decides about the financial support for regional projects.
The LAG can be seen as a kind of new network of practice. In this context it is important for the
LAGs to assemble people with various backgrounds and to foster a good communication and
cooperative climate. A survey of LAG-members shows positive results: there are improvements in
the cooperation beyond administrative borders (respectively, narrow village boundaries), in the
improving of understanding views from other groups and in the cooperation between different
groups. Thus LEADER is an example of how an external programme can connect actors from
different interest groups who would, without this programme, in part not have met.
In addition, LEADER offers the possibility to try out new approaches, as the regions have access
to their own funding budget to implement their ideas. But in practice the possibilities of funding
experimental or innovative projects via LEADER depend very much on the extent to which the
RDPs are able to provide a suitable framework to fund projects outside the standard menu of
measures. The assessments of the LAG-managers show that the real possibilities are limited,
particularly compared with the former funding period (LEADER+). But despite these limitations,
we found LEADER- projects fostering innovation in very different fields.
Key words: LEADER, Innovation, Evaluation, Funding

1. Introduction
1.1

Challenges in rural areas and innovation

With the New Rural Paradigm, the OECD (1996) put forward the concept of territorial
dynamics to denote a set of specific regional and local factors, structures and tendencies.
These include entrepreneurial traditions, public and private networks, work ethics, regional
identity, participation and attractiveness of the cultural and natural environment.
Thereby the challenges and problem situations in rural areas are very different. On the one
hand, possibilities for attractive employment opportunities are small in disadvantaged regions
and inhabitants can feel less connected to their area. Also, their willingness to invest time and
capital to improve the liveability of their habitat deteriorates. Highly educated persons are
often the first to leave, causing a so-called brain-drain which leads to rural areas with low
potential (Stockdale, 2006, Wellbrock et al 2012). On the other hand, there are rural regions
successful in seizing the opportunities arising from globalisation and thus referred to as hotspots of development (Wiskerke, 2007; BBR 2008). In both cases, however, it is argued that
in order to enhance rural economies, producers and consumers need to be reconnected within
the region, products need to be re-embedded in the region, economic activities diversified and
non-economic and economic activities entwined (Wiskerke, 2007; Wellbrock et al, 2012).
Also the EUs innovation policy states that regional policy would be an important route for
encouraging innovation. (EU-COM, 2003). It refers to the goal of the Lisbon strategy of
becoming the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy.

From the literature, there is a hypothesis that the factors behind the different economic
performance in rural regions are related to an interplay of local and global forces, in which
territorial dynamics, population dynamics and the current globalization process are thought to
be main determinants (Terluin, 2003). By analysing differences in the economic performance
Terluin (2003) proposes a kind of general guideline for economic development strategies in
rural regions. This guideline recommends improving the capacity (knowledge, skills and
attitude) of local actors to establish and sustain development within the region as one of the
key issues (Terluin, 2003). Successful development approaches therefore include human
skills, capacity-building and innovation as a crucial element (Tomaney, 2010). Thereby the
commitment and creativity of the local people play a crucial role for the development and
viability of rural areas (Krhnert et al, 2011).
Innovation (in different senses) is mentioned in various pieces of literature as an important
pillar for the development of rural areas or as a rescuer from problems in rural areas.
For example Neumeier (2011) states, that innovation is an essential aspect of finding
suitable solutions for problems of rural development. Especially against the background of
demographic change in rural areas, social innovations are regarded as one of the important
aspects of successful rural development (Papageorgiou 2011, Neumeier 2011). In addition,
innovation has been identified as one of the five key drivers of productivity, so it is one of
the key determinants of the relative economic performance of rural areas (Agarwal 2009, HM
Treasury, 2001). Also the theories governing territorial innovation models highlight the
diffusion of innovations as an important engine behind growth (Morgan, 1997; Terluin 2003).
It became appearent that the context of innovation as an insight into the driving factors behind
the economic performance of rural regions is not only of scientific interest, but also of high
political relevance (Terluin, 2003). This knowledge can reveal how the rural development
could be supported by state driven opportunity structures.
Expectations on the policy are that it should be able to foster very different problem
situations, because the support required for innovation in rural areas is highly context
dependent and problem specific1 (Tovey, 2008; Wellbrock et al, 2012). According to Asheim
(2007) and Florida (1995), the success of support for regional learning and innovation
depends on the arrangement of effective, co-operative and operational partnerships between
actors of the different strings (Wellbrock et al, 2012).
1.2

Support for innovation in Rural Development Programmes

Facing the challenges in rural areas like economic problems, demographic changes or matters
of renewable energy, a crucial issue in Rural Development Programmes funded by the
European Union (RDP) is innovation. One part of Rural Development Programmes, which
explicitly addresses innovation, is LEADER: a bottom up-oriented, participatory approach
with cooperation by local actors in rural areas. Its intention is to cover all the abovementioned aspects for a locally- based economic development.
The practical implementation is carried out through Local Action Groups (LAG). In these
groups, stakeholders of different institutions and origins come together as a kind of a publicprivate partnership and make decisions about the financial support for regional projects.
Those projects must contribute to the objectives of the Local Development Strategies (LDS),
which were compiled by the members of the LAG.
1

We have not tried to identify best practices but rather to locate some good practices for rural sustainable
development, that is, practices that are context-bound and that are good because of the way they help to embed
sustainable development in local contexts. Best practices are identified with a view to making them
transferable from one location to another, but good practices are not easily transferable: what is good in
one context needs to be continually reinvented in new forms for other contexts (Tovey, 2008).

History of the LEADER approach

From 1991 to 2006, Leader I, Leader II and Leader+ were conceived as a laboratory to
encourage the emergence and testing of new approaches to integrated and sustainable
development and to influence, complement and/or reinforce rural development policy in the
Community (LEADER Guide, 2011).
So the LEADER approach disposes over broad experience in implementing innovations in
rural areas, and has been a constitutive part of the RDP since the year 2007. In that fundingperiod (2007 2013), LEADER was extended to all European rural areas. But now, as
LEADER is subject to the mainstream regulations of the Council on support for rural
development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (Council
Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005), there are concerns about losing the innovative character of
the LEADER axis, based on the whole design and consequences in the regional
implementation and the character of the projects (European Network for Rural Development,
2010).
For further improvements the lessons drawn from the three previous stages of LEADER
should be used together with examinations from the current stage (Nardone et al, 2010).
1.3

Theoretical Framework of Innovation

Basically Rogers (2003) described innovation as an idea, practice, or object that is perceived
as new by an individual or other unit of adoption.
Neumeier (2011) comprehends innovation in context of rural developement in an economic
sense with new products and services as well as in a social sense (Neumeier, 2011) which
contents new ways of organising infrastructure and participation. These elements can also be
found in the context of LEADER. Several definitions exist on different levels, in general they
all fit into Rogers concept, but differ slightly in two aspects: the innovation itself and who
perceives it as new.
The most common understanding of the innovation itself in the LEADER context is very
broad:
It includes products and processes as well as organizational, social and institutional and
communication matters (i e., the RDPs of the federal states as an example here: HMUELV
(2007), Neumeier (2011), OECD (2011), LEADER Guide (2011), Dargan and
Shucksmith (2008))
And the most common understandings of the question Who must perceive it as new in the
LEADER context are:
The unit of adoption of the innovation at the local level,
it is not enough if it is only new for the one who carries out the innovation.
But rules are lacking on who decides on newness at the local level.
Rogers definition is embedded in the theory of the diffusion of innovation, which seeks to
explain the spreading of ideas and technologies through cultures. It is similar to Schumpeters
(1911) economics-related definiton which sees innovation as not only the invention itself but
only fullfilled if it is taken over in the real (production) process.
The connecting factor to the LEADER approach is the intended diffusion of ideas and
solutions between regions. It must be understood not only as a new project, but as an
approach to solve specific challenges in new ways.
Rogers described many factors for analysing innovation:
a. The characteristics of the innovation itself (by relative advantage, complexity/simplicity,
trailability, observability)

b. The personal innovation-decision process (with the steps: awareness, interest, evaluation,
trail, confirmation/adoption)
c. The relative speed with which an innovation is adopted by members of the social system
(Rate of adoption)
d. The social system2 as a set of interrelated units that are engaged in joint problem-solving
to accomplish a common goal and the communication channels of these units, through
which innovation is communicated between the members of the social system.
The differences between the stakeholders of the LAG play an important role, referring to
theories of networks and communication. We know, that communication is more effective
between individuals which are similar in certain attributes (origin, beliefs, education,) or
which share the same implicit knowledge (so called communities of practice) (Wenger,
1998), but it can lead to redundant information because there is less new information to
exchange. A heterogeneous communication network holds much more potential for new
information. But at the same time a certain degree of similarity is required for communication
and diffusion of innovation.
Several scientists observed and analyzed this phenomenon and labeled it with different terms.
To mention only a few: similarity and dissimilarity, social closeness and social distance, colinear and non-linear, homophily and heterophily (Rogers 1970). Rogers (1970) states
Therefore, an ideal situation would involve two individuals who are homophilous in every
way, except in knowledge of the innovation. Manger (2009) expatiates two ways out of the
dilemma: either the existence of Boundary spanners who are socialized in different
communities and play the role of a translator. Or the development of new networks of
practice, with members from different communities of practice, bringing in the
heterogeneous aspects of their communities, but developing social bonds and common
communication rules through regular meetings and exchanges.
In this context the LAG can be seen as a kind of new network of practice. It is important for
the LAGs to assemble people with various backgrounds and it is also necessary to protect and
foster a good communication and cooperation climate which is prerequisite for an easy
exchange of newness (information, ideas, ).
1.4

Research topics of this paper

Within this paper only a few of the mentioned factors are further elaborated in the context of
LEADER:
The potential of innovation against the background of the various funding-frameworks
Getting and creating innovative ideas and solutions as a pre-step of the innovation
decision process
Implementation in practice: occurence of innovative and suitable solutions
The inter-regional communication channels.

2. Methods
2.1

Framework of the study

The research presented is part of the evaluation of Rural Development Programmes in seven
German federal states3 started in 2007 and ending in 2015. Therefore the Common Evaluation
2

With focus on opinion leaders, theory of organisations (esp. collective and authority decisions) and the
principles of homophily and heterophily
3
Hesse, Schleswig-Holstein, Mecklenburg-Pomerania, Lower Saxony incl. Bremen, North Rhine-Westphalia,
Hamburg

and Monitoring Framework (CMEF) must be taken into account in choosing an appropriate
research methodology. The seven federal states incorporate 98 LEADER areas and 23 other
regions with Local Development Plans.
Concerning innovation, the main aims of our research are to identify the extent to which
innovation happens in LEADER and what factors facilitate or hinder the occurrence of new
approaches to address problems and challenges in rural areas.
2.2

Data collection tools

We used mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods depending on the specific question
to be addressed. Until 2012 the main instruments for data collection were:
more than 100 face-to-face interviews (project initiators, LAG-managers, LAG-members,
governmental employees at different levels and responsibilities),
two surveys with written questionnaires:
members of the LAGs decision bodies (N=2310, n=1430, response rate: 62%)4
LAG-managers of LEADER areas and other areas with local development plans and
processes (N=121, n=114, reply rate 94%)5
standardised annual requests of activities and organizational structures in the areas6
analysis of funding documents and funding data.
A survey with written questionnaires (to project beneficiaries) is ongoing but not fully
completed at the moment. First results will be presented in the session.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1
The potential of innovation against the background of the various
LEADER funding-frameworks
The concept and constraints of innovation are not clearly defined in the Council Regulation
1698/2005 for the LEADER approach, it is only identified as one of the seven characteristics
and the guidelines mention that the LEADER axis is meant to stimulate innovation. But
innovation is not explicit mentioned as an eligibility criterion for project funding.
Projects
Within the LEADER context, the regulation (Art. 63 of Reg. (EC) 1698/2005) states that the
possibility exists to fund innovative projects under the Leader axis, which need not
correspond to the criteria of standard measures as regards Axes 1 3, but which contribute to
the goals of one or several of these axes.
Here, especially the lack of a clear definition of innovation at the EU level produced different
definitions which more or less restrict the selection of projects by the LAGs. In the beginning
of this funding period, the RDPs of the seven federal states (included in this study) used the
following designs to fund LEADER-projects:
a. Restricted to the measures of (nearly) one axis;
b. Restriction to the measures of two or all axes;
c. Possibility of funding for projects which contribute to one or more objectives of all
axes.

In the following text indicated as Pollermann et al (2010c)

In the following text indicated as Pollermann et al (2010a)
6
In the following text indicated as Pollermann et al (2010b)
5

It must be taken in account, that the axis-measures are subdivided into different components
of measures, which can also be more or less innovative depending on the directive of the
federal state. The crucial point is the restricted choice of projects by the LAGs, if the directive
restricts to axis measures and there is no appropriate axis-measure for the special regional
issue.
Other innovative elements
The general assumption in LEADER is that the networking and cooperation of stakeholders
from different institutions, origins and sectors play an important role in creating new ideas,
solving specific regional challenges and advancing innovation. Some conditions to assemble
heterogenous partners in the LAG are set, as the following paragraph shows:
A partnered local development approach shall be implemented by the local action groups
satisfying the following conditions: () representing partners from the various locally based
socioeconomic sectors in the territory concerned. At the decision-making level the economic
and social partners, as well as other representatives of the civil society, such as farmers,
rural women, young people and their associations, must make up at least 50 % of the local
partnership; (). (EC 1698/2005)
The stakeholder should come together to develop the regional strategies in a Local Action
Group (LAG) as a kind of a public-private partnership and make decisions about the financial
support for projects, in working groups to develop topics or projects in coherence to the local
strategies. In these meetings the ideas and drafts are supposed to be evaluated, which can be
seen as the of the next step of Rogers innovation process.
For the further step trying out new approaches, LEADER also provides opportunities as the
regions have access to their own funding budget to implement their ideas.
3.2
Getting and creating innovative ideas and solutions as a pre-step in
the innovation decision process
Rogers described the awareness of the innovation as the first step of the adaption process.
This implies that the innovation itself already exists. The LEADER approach fosters the
coming to light of existing ideas, but it also tries to start one step beyond by creating new
ideas, actions and solutions within a region. As mentioned above, a general assumption in this
approach is that networking and cooperation of stakeholders from different sectors play an
important role in creating new ideas and advancing innovations.
The kick-off-meetings for developing the Local Development Strategies (LDS) are one of the
first opportunities to meet and develop ideas. 75% of the LAG-members asked agree that
there is a high compatibility of the strategy with the regional circumstances (Figure 1).

The local strategy suits to

the regional
circumstances

0%

10 %

20%

1 = Fully correct

30 %
2

40 %
3

50 %
5

60 %

70 %

6 = Not correct at all

80 %

90 %

100 %

I cannot assess

Fig. 1. Distribution of answers (in percentage of total) to the question To what extent do you agree with the
following statements? by the LAG members (Pollermann et al 2010c)

Most of the projects implemented until 2010 were developed during or after the development
of the regional strategies (Figure 2). In the old areas (which were already LEADER+) a few
more project-ideas were already existent before developing the strategy, but all in all there is
no significant difference between the old and new areas (which were selected as LEADER
areas in 2007 for the first time).
It may be assumed that working together to develop or implement the strategies creates new
ideas. It can also be realized that the development of a LDS brings about new actions and
projects even if the regional actors had created the previous strategies seven years ago.
But the lists of ideas or concepts for projects in the LDS are often much longer compared to
the projects carried out. As the analysis of the strategies shows, they either arose in working
groups at the kick-off-meetings or individuals already had them in mind. However, the fact
that they were made public is a step towards the awareness of innovation on a regional level.
Occurrence of the projects
After developing the strategy

During developing the strategy

Before developing the strategy

I can't assess
0%

10 %
New LEADER areas

20 %

30 %

40 %

50 %

60%

Old LEADER areas

Fig. 2. Distribution of answers (in percentage of total) to the question When did the ideas for the now LAGconfirmed projects occur? by the LAG Managers (Pollermann et al 2010a)

Referring to the importance of heterogeneity some aspects were considered to assess the
heterogeneity of the LAGs. On average the LAG may be seen as heterogeneous mixtures of
people, but a closer look discloses wide ranges within the LAGs.
There are LAGs with only seven members, some with no women at all and some with only
three different institutions represented in their decision-making bodies (Table 1). Furthermore
the analysis reveals a high proportion of members with an academic degree (i. e., 86% in
Hesse), and almost half of the LAG members are more than 50 years old, while people under
25 are only occasionally represented.
Table 1. Heterogeneity within the LAGs by size and by sex, thematically and institutional origin of the members

Maximum
Number of members of the decision- making body of LAG
Hesse
32
Schleswig-Holstein
27
Mecklenburg-Pomerania
52
Lower Saxony
53
North Rhine-Westphalia
77
All of the five federal states
77
Proportion of women in the LAGs decision-making body(%)

Minimum

Average

7
10
12
11
12
7

13.9
16.7
21.7
24.1
26.0
20.5

Hesse
Schleswig-Holstein
Mecklenburg-Pomerania
Lower Saxony
North Rhine-Westphalia
All of the five federal states

50
44
78
54
33
78

0
5
15
11
8
0

20,7%
20.2%
44.4%
29.6%
17.0%
26.4%

Number of thematical origins of the members of the decision making body of the LAGs
Hesse
13
5

9,5

Number of institutional origins of the members of the decision-making body of the LAGs
Hesse
8
3

5,1

Source: Own calculation based on standardised annual requests (Pollermann, 2010b)

Understanding LAGs as new networks of practice within innovative aspects can be

exchanged, it is important to develop a good cooperation and communication climate.
Improvements in indicative aspects on quality of cooperation between the stakeholders in the
LAG are found, shown in Figure 3.

Caused by LEADER

Through LEADER...
it is possible to carry out innovative
projects.
...my understanding for views of other
stakeholder groups improved.
the collaboration beyond
comunal borders improved.
the collaboration between
divers topics improved.
0%

10%

1 = Fully correct

20%
2

30%
3

40%
4

50%

60%

70%

6 = Not correct at all

80%

90% 100%

I cannot assess

Fig. 3. Distribution of answers (in percentage of total) to the question: Including the whole work of the
LEADER-process, in what way do you agree or disagree to the statements? (Pollermann et al 2010a)

The quantitative results are underpinned by qualitative data (verbal questioning and open
questions7 in written questionnaires) through statements of the LAG-members on new
positive effects beyond the LEADER process, but induced by the LEADER process:
Improved cooperation between the municipal authorities
Improved cooperation beyond administrative borders
Improved cooperation between different groups
But not only improvements in the quality of networking were mentioned but also aspects of
the innovation-process itself:
transfer of knowledge between people
inspiration for projects and actions
improved sense of acting jointly in and for the region
Similar results were found for the question on advantages and disadvantages of the LEADERapproach (only the advantages are shown in Figure 4). But the summarized answers highlight
7

One question they were asked: Which positive effects beyond the LEADER process but caused by LEADER
(new ideas stimulation for own activities and joint activities with other LAG-members) did you recognise?

more the circumstances for innovation (networking/cooperation) than the aspects associated
with innovation themselves (innovation, learning).

Transparency
3%
Unbureaucratic
6%

Other
5%

Bottom up /
Participation
21%

Support/assistance
structures
5%

Financial support
9%
Networking /
Cooperation
19%

Carrying out
projects
9%
Regional identity
4%
Regional suitability
10%

Learning
6%
Innovation
3%

Fig. 4. Distribution of answers (in percentage of total) to the question What essential advantages and
disadvantages does the LEADER approach offer? by the LAG members (only the advantages are shown here)
(Pollermann et al 2010c)

As a boundary effect the image shows that other associated characteristics of LEADER, like
bottom up and regional identity are also realized by the LAG-members.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the understanding of the process of social capital
formation, its determinants, and the effects of its impacts go beyond its measurement
(Nardone et al, 2010).
3.3

Implementation practice: the innovation-process

As mentioned above, LEADER offers the possibility to try out new approaches, as the regions
have access to their own funding budget to implement their ideas.
The assessments of the LAG-managers show that the possibilities for implementing
innovative projects are limited, particularly compared with the former funding period
(LEADER+) (Pollermann et al 2010a). The differences between the federal states can be seen
in Figure 5.
Not all of the federal states offered the measure innovative projects, explaining partly the
poor results. Other explanations for this were the limited or vague conditions and
administrative obstacles (time lags in the approval procedure, no payment in advance to the
beneficiaries, paperwork) resulting mainly of the mainstreaming of LEADER (to the
restrictive rules of EAFRD).

LEADER+ (until 2006)

LEADER+
NI (n=13)
(until 2006)
MV (n=11)

23,1

45,5

37,5

Total (n=38)*

7,9

27,3

9,1

25,0

12,5

31,6

25,0

21,1

31,6

NI (n=13)

69,2

MV (n=11)

2,6 5,1

0%

36,4

36,4

12,5

12,5

10,3

10%

5,3 2,6

30,8

18,2

9,1

HE (n=8)
Total (n=39)

15,4

53,9

18,2

HE (n=8)

Situation
2010

Situation 2010

7,7

75,0

10,3

20%

1 = very good possible

48,7

30%
2

40%
3

50%
5

23,1

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

6 = not possible at all

*The results of North Rhine-Westphalia and Schleswig-Holstein are included in the total but were not presented separately because of the
small size of the subgroups (1 and 5 respectively).

Fig. 5. Distribution of answers (in percentage of total) to the question How do you judge the possibilities to
carry out innovative project? by the LAG Managers (Pollermann et al 2010a)

But the LEADER-projects realized wirthin the measure innovative projects are not so much
different from regular measures under the other Axes, as the analysis of the project
descriptions show.
Some federal states in Germany have already made improvements within this funding period
because of these problems.
The findings will be supplemented by the current written survey of the beneficiaries. First
results can be presented at the seminar, for example answers to the question: What were the
starting points of innovative projects?
Although there are limitations, in practice LEADER brings forward projects on very different
topics. So there are concepts for a sustainable usage of energy, youth projects for
qualification, internet platforms (for education), but most of the projects are linked with
touristic development. Other relevant topics for the rural development are underrepresented.
As a matter of fact, the LAGs are forced to search for other ways to implement their ideas.
Taking into account that not all ideas are worthy of implementation, as is also stated by the
LAG-Managers either because it does not fit to the regional strategy or the quality of the
project proposal is poor, there are a lot of projects which were (and will be) implemented on
other ways (Source: Analysis of the Annual Reports of the LAGs). But some of the ideas are
lost, due to the administrative restrictions mentioned before.
3.4

The inter-regional communication channels

Refering to Rogers innovation theory, since the rural regions can be understood as members
of a social system, to communicate between them is necessary to foster the adaption process.
This means circulating information on successful projects and sharing good practices. Even if

the new projects and ideas are not transferable as a whole to other regions, having heard of
experiences might inspire participants to find appropriate solutions for their specific setting.
Various possibilities exist for the exchange between the actors of different regions. The
LEADER-measure cooperation was established for the purpose of exchange and working
together between the regions by carrying out joint projects, but the current status of
implementation is poor, as the funding data from the federal ministries shows. It is remarkable
that cooperation between different regions are carried out within regular8 projects.
Hindrances are identified in the various adminstrative processes and forms (Pollermann et al
2010a, Pollermann et al 2010b, Pollermann et al 2010c).
As shown in Figure 6, the LAG-Managers prefer the personal informal means of exchange
between regions, meaning meetings or phone calls with single managers. In the meantime,
personal meetings of all managers in each of the federal states have been established at
various institutional levels and different levels of involvement of the Ministries. These
meetings are also perceived as an important exchange and assistance platform by the parties
involved. The german National Rural Network as the insitution for the exchange between the
federal states is less important than the personal communication, but still more than half of the
managers judge it as an important offer (Pollermann et al 2010a).
The biggest gap between the general importance and the practical implementation is found at
the federal-state-wide meetings. It points out, that it may be necessary to strengthen more the
federal-state-wide meetings (Pollermann et al 2010a). Exchanges between other stakeholders
(except the LAG-Managers) have not yet been analysed.

seminar
and
workshop
offer by other offers
of the
the
nationalwi nationalwi
de
de
personal
federal- informal institution institution
for
for
states-wide way for the
meetings exchange networking networking

By the current survey, information will be collected about the origin of ideas and interests on
implemented projects from others, as well as desired support structures for the beneficiaries.
National Rural Network: practical
practicalimplementation
implementation
other offers
general
importance
general
importance

practicalimplementation
implementation
National Rural Network: practical
seminars and workshops

Personal informal way

for the exchange
Federal-states-wide
meetings

general
general
importance
importance
practical
practicalimplementation
general
importance
general
importance
practical implementation
practical
general
importance
general
importance

0%
1 = very important/very useful

20%
4

40%

60%

5 = not important /not useful at all

80%

100%

I cannot assess

Fig 6: Distribution of answers (in percentage of total) to the question How important are the following support
structures and possibilities to exchange in general? How do you judge the practical implementation? (Pollermann
et al 2010a)

4. Conclusions
1. The LEADER approach intends to foster innovation and the adaption process. The
conditions set offer the possibility to take the steps to the innovation-process. LEADER
provides opportunities to realize innovative projects to try out new solutions and meet the
specific needs in the region. The crucial point is the restricted choice of projects by the
LAG due to the directives of the federal states in terms of the restrictions to axis
8

Not the measure with EAFRD Code 421

measures, as well as the narrow framework of EAFRD and the resulting administrative
obstacles.
2. Referring back to the importance of having members with heterogeneous backgrounds in
the LAGs to reduce redundant information it can be assumed that in most of the LAGs
stakeholders from different sectors are working together. But the diversity within the
LAGs (referring i. e. to number of members, theme or institutional origin, sex, age) is
sometimes close. Besides, it is also necessary to protect and foster a good communication
and a cooperative climate which is prerequisite for the easy exchange of newness
(information, ideas,). From the view of the LAG members the quality of cooperation
and communication within the LAG improves during the process. The fundamental
aspects of the LEADER approach, like creating projects/actions suited to the specific
region, connecting regional interests in common actions, innovative trials, learning/
exchange of knowledge and cooperation can be observed. Altogether LEADER focuses
on establishing the preconditions for innovation and not on implementing the innovations
themselves.
3. The kick-off-meetings, working groups and elaboration process of the Local Development
Strategy are sources for the production of a number of new ideas for the specific regional
development in the beginning of the process. Looking at the implemented projects, it is
obvious that tourism-related actions are most frequent and other relevant topics for the
rural development are underrepresented. Compared to the ideas from the beginning of the
process, apparently a lot of ideas get stuck before being implemented. Of the various
determining reasons, two will be mentioned as follows:
The possibilities of funding experimental or innovative projects via LEADER depend
very much on the extent to which the RDPs are able to provide a suitable framework
to fund projects outside the standard menu of measures.
Caused by the mainstreaming of LEADER, a lot of administrative obstacles (time
lags, advanced payment, paperwork) faced the beneficiaries compared to the former
funding period.
Although in theory innovation plays an important part in LEADER, in the output of
projects it has been quite limited up to now.
4. Not only the lack of possibilities to implement innovative projects but also other obstacles
in the beginning of this funding period led partly to de-motivation of actors for further
involvement and loss of confidence in the LEADER funding. Some of the (potential)
beneficiaries have developed a somewhat negative perception of the programme.
5. Forums for exchange exist for the LAG Managers, but increasing the interstate exchange
might be helpful. The exchange between LEADER areas through carrying out joint
projects by the intended cooperation measure is low.
6. The following question might be taken in account for further investigations in the field of
innovation within the LEADER approach as well as stimulation for a discussion about the
prospective policy:
Is there any need to restrict the sovereignty of the LAG in their choice of projects?
How is an optimal network of practice composed? What is a minimum of
heterogeneity in a LAG how can it be made measureable and implemented in the
regulations?
What are the differences in the content of the actions and projects between LEADER
Axis and other Axes?
How can the conditions for cooperation projects (EAFRD Code 421) be improved?
How can the exchange between the areas be improved, but not only involving the
managers?

References
Agarwal, Sheela, Rahman, Sanzidur, Errington, Andrew (2009) `Measuring the determinants
of relative economic performance of rural areas, Journal of Rural Studies, 25 (2009) p. 309
321.
Asheim, B. (2007) `Learning and innovation in a globalising economy: the role of learning
regions In Gustavsen, B., Nyhan, B. & Ennals, R. (2007) `Learning together for local
innovation: promoting learning regions (pp. 218-234) Luxembourg, Office for Official
Publications of the European Communities.
BBR, Bundesamt fr Bauwesen und Raumordnung Hrsg. (2008) Erfolgsbedingungen von
Wachstumsmotoren auerhalb der Metropolen, Werkstatt:Praxis, H. 56. Bonn.
EU-COM, Commision of the European Communities (2003) Communicaton from the
Commission to the council, the European Parliamant, the european economic an social
committee and the committee of the regions `Innovation policy: updating the Unions
approach in the context of the Lisbon strategy`, COM(2003) 112 final.
Dargan, L.; Shucksmith, M. (2008) `LEADER and innovation`, Sociologia Ruralis, 48 (3) pp.
274-291.
EU-COM, Commission of the European Communities (2006) `Rural Development 2007-2013
- Handbook on Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework`, Guidance Document,
September 2006. Brssel.
European Network for rural Development (Focus Group 2) (2010) Extended Report on
preserving
the
innovative
Character
of
LEADER
Available
online:
http://enrd.ec.europa.eu/app_templates/filedownload.cfm?id=7CC8B99E-925C-7C33-CE761814EDEAD8A3 (Download: 24th of Juli 2012).
Council Regulation (EC) No (1698/2005) of 20 September 2005 on support for rural
development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD).
Florida, R. (1995) `Towards the learning region` Futures 27(5), pp. 527-536.
DOI:10.1016/0016-3287(95)00021-N.
HM Treasury (2001) `Productivity in the UK: 3 The Regional Dimension` Department of
Trade and Industry, London. [cited from Agarwal et al. 2009].
HMULV (2007) `Entwicklungsplan fr den lndlichen Raum des Landes Hessen 2007
2013`, Hessisches Ministerium fr Umwelt, lndlichen Raum und Verbraucherschutz,
Wiesbaden.
Krhnert, S.; Kuhn, E.; Karsch, M.; Klingholz, R. (2011) Die Zukunft der Drfer. Zwischen
Stabilitt und demografischem Niedergang, available online at http://www.berlininstitut.org/?id=833; accessed 14. June 2012.
LEADER Guide (2011) Guide for the application of the LEADER axis of the rural
development programmes 2007-2013 funded by the EAFR`, available online
http://www.agri.ee/public/juurkataloog/LEADER/updated_leader_axis_guide_20111.pdf;
accessed 21st of June 2012: Author.
Manger, D. (2009) Innovation und Kooperation
Netzwerkes, Bielefeld: transcript Verlag.

- Zur Organisierung eines regionalen

Morgan, K. (1997) `The learning region: institutions, innovation and regional renewal`
Journal of the Regional Studies Association, 315, pp. 491503.
Nardone, Gianluca; Sisto, Roberta, Lopolito (2010) `Social Capital in the LEADER Initiative:
a methodological approach`Journal of Rural Studies, 26 (2010), pp. 6372.

Neumeier, S. (2011) `Why do social innovations in rural development matter and should they
be considered more seriously in rural development research? Proposal for a Stronger focus on
social innovations in rural development research` Sociologia ruralis, 52 (1) pp. 48-69.
OECD, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2006) The New Rural
Paradigm: Policies and Governance, OECD Publishing.
OECD (2011) Regions and Innovation Policy OECD Reviews of Regional Innovation. OECD
Publishing, available online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264097803-en.
Pollermann, K., Raue, P. und Schnaut, G. (2010a) `RM-Befragung. Befragung der
Regionalmanagements der Leader-Regionen der Bundeslnder Hamburg, Hessen,
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Niedersachsen, Nordrhein-Westfalen und Schleswig-Holstein`
(Rcklaufquote 93 %, 89 Befragte), 06/2010.
Pollermann, K., Raue, P. und Schnaut, G. (2010b) `Xls-Abfrage. Standardisierte Abfrage zu
Eckdaten der regionalen Organisationsstrukturen und Aktivitten der LAGn in den
Bundeslndern Hamburg, Hessen, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Niedersachsen, NordrheinWestfalen und Schleswig-Holstein (96 Leader Regionen)`, jhrliche Erfassung.
Pollermann, K., Raue, P. und Schnaut, G. (2010c) `LAG-Befragung: Befragung der LAGMitglieder der Leader-Regionen der Bundeslnder Hamburg, Hessen, MecklenburgVorpommern, Niedersachsen, Nordrhein-Westfalen und Schleswig-Holstein (Rcklaufquote
62%, 2310 Befragte)` 10/2009 - 02/2010.
Papageorgiou, F. (2011) `Economic change and community planning. An example of social
innovation in declining rural areas`, in:Rvans, R., Tsipidis, V.; Aldea-Partanen, A. (eds.)
`Thematic guide nine. Social innovation and sustainable rural devlopment.` Euracademy
thematic guide series. Athens pp. 38-43, available online at http://www.euracademy.org,
accessed 22 June 2012.
Rogers, E.M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations 5th ed., Free Press, New York.
Rogers, Everett M. und Ph.K. Bhowmik (1970) `Homophily - Heterophily: Relational
Concepts for Communication Research` Public Opinion Quarterly 34: 523-538.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. (1911) The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits,
Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. Transaction Publishers.
Stockdale, A. (2006) `Migration: A Pre-Requisite for Rural Economic Regeneration Journal
of Rural Studies, 22(3), 354-366. DOI:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2005.11.001.
Terluin (2003) `Differences in economic developement in rural regions of advanced countries:
an overview an critical analysis of theories`, Journal of Rural Studies, 19 (3), pp. 327-344.
Tomaney, J. (2010) Place-based approaches to regional development: Global trends and
Australian implications Australian Business Association, Sydney, Australia. available online
at http://www.abfoundation.com.au/research_project_files/52/Tomaney_Rev.
Final_Colour.pdf
Tovey, H. (2008) `Introduction: Rural Sustainable Development in the Knowledge` Society
Era. Sociologia Ruralis 48(3), 185-199. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9523.2008.00460.x.
Wellbrock, Wiebke; Roep, Dirk; Wiskerke, Johannes S. C. (2012): `An Integrated Perspective
on Rural Regional Learning` Europ. Countrys., 12012 pp. 1-16 (DOI: 10.2478/v10091-0120010-y).
Wenger, Etienne (1998) Communities of practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity,
Cambrigde, Cambridge University Press

Wiskerke, J. S. C. (2007) `Robust regions: Dynamics, coherence and diversity in the

metropolitan landscape` [Inagural lecture] Wageningen University (quotet by Wellbrock et al.
(2012), p.5).